/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4492501]

What's the most important thing psychology has thought you.

[Anonymous No.4492502]

That I want to suck my father's dick.

[Anonymous No.4492503]

Do your own fucking homework OP.

[Anonymous No.4492504]

Id unno.

[Anonymous No.4492505]

How to spell, and how cognitive basis works.

[Anonymous No.4492506]

That some people actually think psychology is a science and should earn them the right to be called Dr one day.

[Anonymous No.4492510]

>>4492506

social sciences and biology are not sciences lol! am I right gays? :P MATH AND PHYSICS ALL DAY ERRY DAY OH YEA XD AM I COOL ENOUGH FOR /SCI/ YET?

[Anonymous No.4492511]

>>4492510
my point exactly

[Anonymous No.4492512]

>>4492510
It's good that you understand, now go learn something useful.

[Anonymous No.4492530]

> How to spell, and how cognitive basis works.

[Anonymous No.4492534]

That Freud was wrong about pretty much everything.

[Anonymous No.4492567]

>>4492534

[Anonymous No.4492677]

That Scientology is pretty much on the same level as psychology except less lobotomy.

[Anonymous No.4492685]

that smoking a big fat sigar is subconciously linked with having a small penis.

[Anonymous No.4492978]

That Harriet is a liar.

[Anonymous No.4492984]

that for 100 years it was 90% made up nonsense. recently it has made a few tentative steps to becoming a science about as rigorous as biology, ie not very, but a science.

[Anonymous No.4492994]

That if you ask a 3 psychologists why people behave a certain way, you'll get back 5 different answers.

[Anonymous No.4492998]

Freud was a coke-snorting bastard who turned the clock backwards on everything we know about behavior and the brain

now we can finally recover with behavioral neuroscience

[Anonymous No.4493017]

>>4492501
That Freud was a classy bastard and probably wanted to fuck his mother.

[Anonymous No.4493024]

>>4492998
he drank cocaine dissolved in water

[Anonymous No.4493039]

>>4492998
Freud was trained as a neurologist, which was by the time's standards the hard-science approach to mental phenomena and behaviour. Freud became so "psychological" because he thought the medical science from that time alone couldn't explain human behaviour by biology alone. But he was a strong believer in the primacy of physiology on behaviour. He just didnt' have the tools we have today to see what's going on in a brain. So he compensated for the lack of data with a lot of conjecture and "cultural" explanations.

We are very lucky now to have data from neuroscience to understand the brain.

[Anonymous No.4493045]

>>4493024
He drank water dissolved in cocaine.

[Anonymous No.4493055]

Humans are a sub-par species

[Anonymous No.4493076]

that all people are neurotic/insane in some way and there is no such thing as a completely normal individual.

[Anonymous No.4493142]

>>4493076
yes but doesn't that make everyone more interesting?

[Anonymous No.4493148]

>>4493142
Frankly, I don't think need to have serious defects in order to not be boring. Your likes/dislikes, your skills and specializations, your ideas, etc.

[Anonymous No.4493162]

>>4493076
[Citation needed]

There's so much evidence that doesn't agree with your assertion. There are tests used to asses neuroticism and more recently brainscanning studies which show neurotics' brains react in different ways on some stimuli. But feel free to bring some data to prove it.

[Anonymous No.4493190]

Conditioning, how humans work as machines, etc. The field doesn't have a rigorous foundation to explain a lot of its stuff, but it does have some concrete observations.

Anything that goes beyond this materialistic view in psychology is pseudo babble supported by statistics that don't do much to confirm/deny. Those are things like those goddamn tests in which you draw the first thing that comes to your mind when seeing a picture, and then someone evaluates that drawing to say something about your personality. It's not being 'lol angsty teenager, world is meaningless, emotions are chemical reactions', it's just that it DOESN'T USE ANYTHING THAT'S A GOOD MEASUREMENT. The only things they have to back up their shit are some statistical numbers that are abused by people who don't understand statistics, followed by some biological explanation that isn't strongly translated to human behavior.

Anyone who is a respectable psychologist or researcher doesn't follow the pseudo science, but there are still a ton of people out there who treat psychology like horoscopes or religion or mysticism. It's terrible and they're the people perpetrating the stereotype that psychology is not a science at all.

Bottom up, not top down. The horoscope crowd in soft sciences just don't understand this.

[Anonymous No.4493196]

>>4493076
Normal isn't a set point. Normal is on a continuum which has abnormal on the other end. Psychology just provides a cut off which defines what is normal and what is abnormal.

[Anonymous No.4493213]

>>4492994

[Anonymous No.4493217]

>>4493196
not disputing that, what i am saying is that most people do not fall into the "normal" area of the spectrum.
>>4493162
i am not trying to prove anything here, just sharing what psych has taught me. my experience with other people is such that i have not found many to adhere to what would be considered normal, and i have seen neuroses in most of the people i have encountered in my life. if you would like to prove my experience wrong by showing me statistics that prove most people are completely normal and that abnormal is rare, be my guest and i will integrate that into my experiences.
>>4493142
very much so!

[Anonymous No.4493226]

>>4493217
Well when you consider the definition of normal:
nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/
Adjective:
Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.
Noun:
The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

it shows that majority of people do fall into the normal category because they define normal.

It is like IQ. Over the years, IQ has increased because of nutrition and education and various other environmental reasons, and so it has been adjusted so that the majority of people fall within the norm.

I am not saying the line between normal and abnormal has changed but you cannot say that majority of people fall outside the norm because normal is defined by the majority.

Everyone is expected to display neurotic-ism within a certain amount. But that is the same with happiness/anger and sadness. It is a trait which almost all people display. It is when someone displays above average or below average amount of neurotic-ism is when they are said to be abnormal.

[Anonymous No.4493225]

It taught me that no matter how narrowly, or broadly, you try to test an attribute of the human condition - you can never be sure that the test you used is what actually tests that given attribute the way it is used outside the environment you orchestrated. This practically makes most of psychology open to debate.

William James, all the way!

[Anonymous No.4493229]

That everybody is extremely dull.

I wish I'd never started studying it, really.

[Anonymous No.4493230]

dont trust in non-scientific bullshit

[Anonymous No.4493231]

>>4493190
>observations

this is the keyword here. the general mass dont understand this is all science is. there's no truth. there's no right answer. only observations.

[Anonymous No.4493233]

>>4493217
>what would be considered normal
Normal by definition means that statistically there will always be some more common traits and behaviours associated with them. So by this definition, it's impossible to say most people are not normal.

Maybe it's because you're not talking in any scientific way. Are you a psychodynamic therapist, btw?

[Anonymous No.4493242]

>>4493226
using that definition sure. but i am essentially saying that everyone suffers from what is classified as "abnormal psychology" to some degree and thus are not "normal" psychologically. i could be improperly wording my assessments i suppose. hopefully this post makes more sense and clarifies my position.

[Anonymous No.4493248]

>>4493242
It clarifies that you really do not understand what you are talking about.

Do you not understand what abnormal psychology is?
Do you not realize that it isn't classified as abnormal when it falls within the criteria of "normal". That is like saying any display of happiness is abnormal.

I am beginning to doubt you even studied Psychology and just making this up as you go on.

[Anonymous No.4493261]

>>4493248
>I am beginning to doubt you even studied Psychology and just making this up as you go on.

Shit, he's on to us.

[Anonymous No.4493265]

>>4493248
By the way he speaks he sounds like a Freudian therapist. Just sayin'.

[Anonymous No.4493278]

>>4493265
Freudian therapists are like medieval alchemists. So outdated they are laughably worthless. Do any of them even exist anymore?

[Anonymous No.4493280]

>>4493278
Oh I don't doubt some of them do.

[Anonymous No.4493283]

>>4493248
christ, okay, replace my usage of normal with the word healthy, i didn't think it'd be this hard to get that point across, it's like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand me and make normal have only one damn definition. here's the full definition of normal from meriam webster:
: perpendicular; especially : perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2
a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3
: occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4
a : of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
b : free from mental disorder : sane
5
a of a solution : having a concentration of one gram equivalent of solute per liter
b : containing neither basic hydroxyl nor acid hydrogen <normal silver phosphate>
c : not associated <normal molecules>
d : having a straight-chain structure <normal butyl alcohol>
6
of a subgroup : having the property that every coset produced by operating on the left by a given element is equal to the coset produced by operating on the right by the same element
7
: relating to, involving, or being a normal curve or normal distribution <normal approximation to the binomial distribution>
8
of a matrix : having the property of commutativity under multiplication by the transpose of the matrix each of whose elements is a conjugate complex number with respect to the corresponding element of the given matrix

[Anonymous No.4493285]

>>4493283
>normal = healthy

isn't obesity the statistical norm nowadays?

[Anonymous No.4493298]

>>4493283
But it is healthy to display some neurotic-ism. It is only when it impedes on ones life in certain ways is it considered to be abnormal.

It doesn't change the fact that you seem to not understand that it is alright to display all types of personality and emotional traits and not be considered abnormal.

[Anonymous No.4493300]

>>4493298
>But it is healthy to display some neurotic-ism.
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.4493301]

>>4493285
yes. and if you make a healthy individual be your pattern, type, standard, rule, or principle, then obesity, despite being a statistical norm, still deviates from your type, standard, rule, or principle. this conforms with this definition of normal.
2 a : according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
b : conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern

stop arguing semantics damnit.

[Anonymous No.4493307]

>>4493300
It is healthy to display some neurotic-ism.

[Anonymous No.4493309]

>>4493301
any norm other than a statistical one is not science. it's opinion.

[Anonymous No.4493343]

>>4492501
That autistic people are unable to do any abstract thinking in any complex sense and realize that things besides physics can be scientifically true.

[Anonymous No.4493345]

>>4493301
A norm can also be an ideal. For example, the norm of beauty could be set by Hollywood and media, and most people would fall outside the norm. What they wouldn't know is that many of those beaty standards (like models from the fashion industry) might be getting to that standard by having very unhealthy eating habits.

Obviously, you are conflating these meanings in your posts. In science, normal always means being closer to the middle of a normal statistical distribution. Most people aren't neurotic, so the norm is to not be neurotic. But well, if you are a Freudian type, psychodynamic therapist, you're not used to much evidence-based science....

[Anonymous No.4493348]

>>4493301
You are an idiot. That is all I can say.

[Anonymous No.4493367]

That people are idiots for employing psychologist and encouraging more and more smart people to study this idiotic subject.
Taking psychology class was the worst thing I ever did in my life.

This is how psychology works in simple steps:
1) Let's divide human mind thoughts into categories
2) Let's split each category into some subcategories
3) Let's split each subcategory into more subsubcategories
4) Let's describe these subsubcategories
5) Let's memorize everything now!
6) Let's pretend we do something useful so we get employed

[Anonymous No.4493407]

Superior behavior analyst master race reporting in! Go read some Skinner, Sidman, Hayes and Kohlenberg you faggots and tell me it's not a science.

[Anonymous No.4493437]

>>4493367
Though to be fair, these were only the basics. Many people have chosen to continue with it though, and later they told me that the bullshit they were taught hasn't changed.
I still doubt the usefulness and validity of psychology though.

[Anonymous No.4493457]

>>4493407
You mean this guy?
pic related

[Anonymous No.4493469]

>>4493407
>implying the mind is a black box
I'm not saying psychology is not a science, because it very much is, but behaviorism has been out-dated ever since the cognitive revolution. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4493483]

>>4493469
You are wrong, good sir. Read up on your last Radical Behaviorism. ACT and FAP are behavioral technologies. 3rd wave Behaviorism. Functional analysis isn't outdated at all.

Watsonian metodological behaviorism, mecanicist and reflex stimulus -> response psychology is outdated yes.

Radical Behaviorism is not. They are very very very very different.

[Anonymous No.4493494]

>>4493469
Radical Behavirism isn't about black box. It takes into account:
1. filogenesis
2. ontogenesis
3. culture

to effectively explain behavior through a functional analysis.

[Anonymous No.4493498]

>>4493483
So why the fuck would you tell me to read Skinner?

[Anonymous No.4493501]

>>4493457
Yep, this Kohlenberg yes

[Anonymous No.4493505]

The entire field is too subjective for my tastes.

If the average person behaved slightly differently, we'd have an entirely new class of disorders. Furthermore, if early religions had a different set of morals, later religions would have a different set of morals they had to include (to be accepted), and subsequent non-religious people would have a different set of ideals to strive for (to not be imprisoned), and we would have a different set of desirable behaviors.

Basically, all of our beliefs are intrinsically linked to the beliefs of earlier people. Most rebellion is a rebellion in reasoning, not in end results.

[Anonymous No.4494673]

>>4493498
Because he's the father of Radical Behaviorism. I don't blame you for not knowing the difference, but Radical Behaviorism has advanced a lot from Skinner's time, but still true to its roots.